Shoosmiths has hired struck-off ex-BLP property lawyer Vinay Veneik six years after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled he misused more than half a million pounds of client funds. Despite being disbarred for misusing funds in 2009, Veneik has taken up a role at Shoosmiths as a consultant to its real estate practice in London. The […]

You think law firms will escape the populists? Think again

“People in this country,” pronounced Michael Gove this year, “have had enough of experts.” And therein lay the leitmotif of 2016, a year in which we learned to embrace the unexpected and the irrational. Both were contained in the quote by Gove, a man who ran the UK education and justice departments for years, and who might therefore have been expected to prize knowledge and its uses. His politically expedient decision to attack experts should serve as a warning to lawyers and firms.

“People in this country,” pronounced Michael Gove this year, “have had enough of experts.” And therein lay the leitmotif of 2016, a year in which we learned to embrace the unexpected and the irrational. Both were contained in the quote by Gove, a man who ran the UK education and justice departments for years, and who might therefore have been expected to prize knowledge and its uses. His politically expedient decision to attack experts should serve as a warning to lawyers and firms.

2016 has brought astonishing economic and advisory challenges to in-house and private practice lawyers, all of which The Lawyer has covered in detail. But there’s a wider issue, particularly for private practice. Most law firms work hard at being excellent employers and creating meaningful CSR programmes, but they miss the point about the way they connect with the world outside an upper-middle-class bubble.

Law firms have effectively separated themselves from any discussion of the rule of law and justice, unless it’s to talk about London being a global centre for disputes. Firms have bought into the logic of globalisation and commoditisation that has partly created this anti-elite pushback. So what practical steps can rich law firm ‘haves’ take to help the ‘have-nots’ get access to justice? Why is access to justice not a core business value?

If you accept that populism is a danger, self-interest alone should dictate that lawyers respond. Populism will attack the very globalised business from which commercial law has made millions. Populism will also attack the pesky rules under which companies and countries trade.

At a febrile time when the tabloids are calling judges enemies of the people, not one City lawyer has spoken out in defence of the bench. The bar was furious, and it was vocal. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has asked the Lord Chancellor Liz Truss to deliver a public lecture on the rule of law. From the City firms there was an unedifying silence. In fact, I’d take it further – the silence was an absolute disgrace.

The sublime experience of watching David Pannick QC in conversation with Supreme Court judges in the most important constitutional case of the century was, in contrast, inspiring. How unusual it was to see a debate on screen that was not about cheap applause: reason, expertise and the principles of law were all on show, and are all worth defending. The answer to the dangers of populism is not, then, to sit tight and hope the convulsions of 2016 fade. If the commercial legal profession cares about the rule of law as much as it says it does, it must come up with a collective, nuanced and, above all, vocal response.

Latest Briefings

Carey Olsen partner Christopher Anderson recently introduced the concept of a hybrid vehicle for use in the insurance-linked securities (ILS) industry. Here, he explains how and why he came up with the idea of the world’s first ILS hybrid. As is often said, the best ideas are always the simplest. That is reassuringly accurate for […]

Tony O’Reilly explained the importance of ‘agile app development’ when using no-code automation platforms like Neota. It’s not a new term, it’s been around for the many years but in this context, Tony explained, agile app development is about having something that gives you the ability to develop applications quickly in terms of having an […]

By David Smedley, Andrew Rayment, Shakeel Dad The last few months have seen many announcements in relation to changes expected in the employment law arena. With new information being received almost weekly, our legislation update sets out the changes in chronological order and highlights the headline points together with the proposed or confirmed implementation dates.

Nosworthy v Instinctif Partners Ltd UKEAT/0100/18 – ‘Bad leaver’ provision requiring forfeiture of shares and loan notes was not unlawful In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a bad leaver provision forcing an employee to give up her shareholding if she resigned was not an ‘unconscionable bargain’. Nor was it void as […]

Shoosmiths has hired struck-off ex-BLP property lawyer Vinay Veneik six years after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled he misused more than half a million pounds of client funds. Despite being disbarred for misusing funds in 2009, Veneik has taken up a role at Shoosmiths as a consultant to its real estate practice in London. The […]

Recent news

Average revenue per lawyer (RPL) at the 50-largest US firms in the UK has broken through the $1m mark for the first time, The Lawyer can reveal, with average RPL rising by 8 per cent from $953,000 to a new record of $1.03m. The entry into The Lawyer’s US Top 50 2019 report this year of […]

As we approach the long weekend, here are the big themes from the last five days: 1. Restructuring lawyers are busy – and not just in the magic circle The struggling high street been a theme of the week, with Jamie Oliver’s restaurant business now in administration, and Freshfields and DLA Piper securing the mandate […]

Ahead of The Lawyer Awards 2019, in association with Travelers, we’re looking back on some of the most complex or legally significant cases of the last 12 months, as eight teams vie for the top prize in this year’s litigation category. In a case that has been rumbling on since 2012, a joint team of […]

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has launched its first digital solutions lab in Berlin, the latest step in building a network of innovation units across its global footprint. The lab, located in the Factory co-working space nested in the Görlitzer Park area, will be led by the firm’s German real estate and litigation counsels Gerrit Beckhaus and […]

The combined turnover of the largest independent European firms has broken through the €10bn barrier for the first time, exclusive data gathered by The Lawyer reveals this week. Collectively, the firms featured in this year’s European 100 report brought in a combined €10.4bn in 2018, up 6.5 per cent from €9.76bn in 2017. It is […]

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and DLA Piper are working together on Arcadia’s company voluntary arrangement (CVA), as Philip Green embarks on a plan to rescue the business. Freshfields’ restructuring partners Neil Golding and Adam Gallagher are leading for Arcadia, as its chair Philip Green plans the closure of 23 UK stores, including Topshop, Dorothy Perkins, Miss […]

23 May 201914:50

Job of the week

Premium jobs

Comments

There are 9 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

Here is the Bingham Centre’s response to the recent attacks on the judiciaryhttp://binghamcentre.biicl.org/newsitem/6226
The Bingham Centre works around the world to monitor and protect the rule of law. We need the support of the legal profession to continue our work.

Maybe lawyers think they are a law unto themselves rather than a servant of the “people”. Is “populism” just about dangers? Although Pannick was quick to reassure the court that the Brexit case wasn’t about politics, I wasn’t reassured.

If I may say so, it is not quite right to say that no City lawyer spoke up about Liz Truss’s failure to defend the judiciary. My letter in The Times on 9 November read as follows:

Sir,

When she was appointed lord chancellor, doubts were expressed about the ability and willingness of Liz Truss to defend the Judiciary and the rule of law against a power-hungry executive. As the third career politician appointed to the office since 2012, it was argued that she was unlikely to stand up in Cabinet against the interests of her political colleagues. These doubts were dismissed as being motivated by sexism at the time. However, they have been borne out by Ms. Truss’s failure to throw the weight of her office behind the Judges over the past few days. Perhaps we can therefore have a proper debate about the wisdom of appointing a non-lawyer who is beholden to the executive to this constitutionally pivotal office. Between 1673 and 2012, all lord chancellors were senior lawyers. Since the appointment of Chris Grayling in 2012, however, the justice system has been under the cosh.

It is time for a serious debate on the constitutional significance of the office of lord chancellor and the qualifications of those who hold it. Although safeguards were built into the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act, which permitted non-lawyer politicians to be appointed, they do not appear to be working.

How out of touch are the lawyers who do nothing more than set their sights on the corporate prize. What is the corporate prize? How to dodge taxes perhaps, or how to dodge legal systems elsewhere. Who most ably does this job well according to lawyers mainly living in London, well they do if we are to believe their own publicity. So who is available to curtail corporate sleight of hand, we hardly think the same lawyers are best suited to do that job do you. And there you have the crux of the problem with lawyers particularly in London, they are the product of their own business success, and bear a tarnished reputation because of it. Indeed it is high time for an independent mind more in touch with the voting public to deal with matters appropriately. Democracy works well, its detractors merely utilise the word populist to explain away the distaste felt for those seeking elitist status regardless of merit. History tells us that anyone who places themselves above democracy fails and fails badly.

Good stuff Ted. We’re not quite City but only by 20 metres and we pride ourselves on ensuring access to justice for people in group litigation, such as Hillsborough and historic child abuse, consumers subject to fraud and otherwise. Unfortunately the Jackson reforms have put more and more strain on our ability to do so.
We also act for Santos, the Miller co-claimant and have received a bucket load of abuse and threatened injunctions and we and our client are entitled to expect the LC and all Government spokespersons and lawyers generally to scream out about access and the rule of law highlighted in the case. From many there has been a painful silence.
and yes Cat it was a pleasure to hear Pannick; “you say de Keyser and I say de geezer”

Amazing.
Enshrined in a lawyer’s code of conduct is their duty to court NOT a win for their client. Yet time & time again we find judges who are exposed to “mind games” & abuse of process, categorically shy away from enforcing the full force of the law. The way most lawyers play the system proves the adversarial system is antiquated.
No doubt those who are capitalising on court weaknesses will be the first to object to a tried & tested effective inquisitorial model; nett effect – an end to shysters manipulating the hard work that goes into law reform.